Remfry and Sons. v. CIT

276 ITR 1High Court2005#4334 most cited

What is Remfry and Sons. v. CIT authority for?

Procedural or technical errors in tax filings should not prevent justice, and tax authorities must allow assessees opportunities to correct such mistakes.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Remfry and Sons v CIT · procedural mistakes · technical mistakes · rectification of mistakes · opportunity to correct · dispensing justice · clerical error · typographical error · appeal dismissal · assessment procedure

Judgments citing Remfry and Sons. v. CIT

Chika Overseas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2835/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Cn Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja: (A.Y : 2010-11) M/S Chika Overseas P.Ltd Vs. Dcit Rg 1(1) Indl.Assurance Bldg. R.No.579, 5Th Floor 5Th Floor, Vee Nariman Road Aayakar Bhavan Churchgate M.K. Road Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan : Aaacc2178A (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Revenue By : Mrs Beena Santosh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2017 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 22/02/2017

For Appellant: Ms. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Mrs Beena Santosh

…the date of appeal which was otherwise filed in time and therefore, there is no justification in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on such technical ground. She places reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Remfry & Sons Vs. CIT [276 ITR 1] in support of her contention that filing of appeal with the signature of the Joint Managing Director is only an irregularity and it is not illegal. She also placed reliance on the M/s Chika Overseas Pvt. Ltd. decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd. [318 ITR 173] in support of her above submission. 4. The…

Infor Global Solutions Barneveld) Bv ( Now Known As Infor (Barneveld) Bv), Hyderabad vs. DDIT (It) Cir 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 777/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…ation Global Solutions (I) Pvt Ltd. ITA 3049/Mum/2011 INFOR Global Solutions (Barneveld) BV ITA 776/Mum/2013 ITA 777/Mum/2013 S.No. Case Law Citation 1 Tata Consultancy Services vs State of AP [2004] 271 ITR 401(SC) 2 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. v ITO [2005] 276 ITR 1(Bang-AT) 3 Hewlett Packard (India) Pvt Ltd v ITO (International Taxation) [2006] 5 SOT 660 (Bang) 4 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v DCIT [2006] 7 SOT 465 (Bom) 5 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v ADIT [2006] 103 ITD 324 (Bang) 6 ACC Ltd v CC [2001] 128 ELT 21 (SC) 7 IMP Power Ltd v ITO [2006] 9 SOT 165 (Bom) 4. The Ld. AO examined the legal…

Infor Global Solutions Barneveld) Bv, Hyderabad vs. DDIT (It) Cir 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 776/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…ation Global Solutions (I) Pvt Ltd. ITA 3049/Mum/2011 INFOR Global Solutions (Barneveld) BV ITA 776/Mum/2013 ITA 777/Mum/2013 S.No. Case Law Citation 1 Tata Consultancy Services vs State of AP [2004] 271 ITR 401(SC) 2 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. v ITO [2005] 276 ITR 1(Bang-AT) 3 Hewlett Packard (India) Pvt Ltd v ITO (International Taxation) [2006] 5 SOT 660 (Bang) 4 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v DCIT [2006] 7 SOT 465 (Bom) 5 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v ADIT [2006] 103 ITD 324 (Bang) 6 ACC Ltd v CC [2001] 128 ELT 21 (SC) 7 IMP Power Ltd v ITO [2006] 9 SOT 165 (Bom) 4. The Ld. AO examined the legal…

ITO (It) TDS 3, Mumbai vs. Ssa Global Technologies (I) P.Ltd ( Formerly Knwona As Infor Global Solutions (I) P.Ltd), Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3049/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…ation Global Solutions (I) Pvt Ltd. ITA 3049/Mum/2011 INFOR Global Solutions (Barneveld) BV ITA 776/Mum/2013 ITA 777/Mum/2013 S.No. Case Law Citation 1 Tata Consultancy Services vs State of AP [2004] 271 ITR 401(SC) 2 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. v ITO [2005] 276 ITR 1(Bang-AT) 3 Hewlett Packard (India) Pvt Ltd v ITO (International Taxation) [2006] 5 SOT 660 (Bang) 4 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v DCIT [2006] 7 SOT 465 (Bom) 5 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v ADIT [2006] 103 ITD 324 (Bang) 6 ACC Ltd v CC [2001] 128 ELT 21 (SC) 7 IMP Power Ltd v ITO [2006] 9 SOT 165 (Bom) 4. The Ld. AO examined the legal…

ADIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai vs. Baan Global B.V. Now Known As Information Global Solution ( Barneveld) Bv, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7048/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…ation Global Solutions (I) Pvt Ltd. ITA 3049/Mum/2011 INFOR Global Solutions (Barneveld) BV ITA 776/Mum/2013 ITA 777/Mum/2013 S.No. Case Law Citation 1 Tata Consultancy Services vs State of AP [2004] 271 ITR 401(SC) 2 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. v ITO [2005] 276 ITR 1(Bang-AT) 3 Hewlett Packard (India) Pvt Ltd v ITO (International Taxation) [2006] 5 SOT 660 (Bang) 4 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v DCIT [2006] 7 SOT 465 (Bom) 5 Sonata Information Technology Ltd v ADIT [2006] 103 ITD 324 (Bang) 6 ACC Ltd v CC [2001] 128 ELT 21 (SC) 7 IMP Power Ltd v ITO [2006] 9 SOT 165 (Bom) 4. The Ld. AO examined the legal…

DCIT 22(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Sudhir Vasu Shetty, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6967/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1075/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 M/S. Spectrum Coal & The Acit, Circle 1(3), बनाम/ Power Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. (Formerly M/S. St-Cli Mumbai-400 020 Coal Washeries Ltd), Mch No. 6-3-1089/1/1, Flat No. 203, Pavani Avenue, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 082 Andhra Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs 9860J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Salil Kapoor अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Love Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 140

…Director of the company was travelling to various sites of the company and hence he could not sign the appeal. In support, reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Prime Securities Ltd. reported in 28 DTR 119 (Bom) and Remfry & Sons reported in 276 ITR 1 (Del). The ld. CIT(A), while distinguishing the decisions relied on by the assessee, did not accept the assessee’s explanation. He observed that what the assessee is stating is a matter of ‘convenience’ which can neither supersede nor bypass the requirement of law. Firstly, if this was a bona fide contention, this fact ought to have been mentioned…

Spectrum Coal and Power Ltd ( Formerly M./S. St-Cli Coal Washeries Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1075/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1075/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 बनाम/ M/S. Spectrum Coal & The Acit, Circle 1(3), Power Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. (Formerly M/S. St-Cli Mumbai-400 020 Coal Washeries Ltd), Mch No. 6-3-1089/1/1, Flat No. 203, Pavani Avenue, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 082 Andhra Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs 9860J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Salil Kapoor ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Love Kumar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :21.01.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :29 .01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2010 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2002-03. 2 2. The First Grievance Of The Assessee In Its Appeal Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating The Reason Furnished By The Appellant For Signing The Appeal Memo By The Director Are Genuine & Bonafide. He Further Contended That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deciding The Appeal On The Basis Of Technical Objections Raised Rather Than Deciding The Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 140

…Director of the company was travelling to various sites of the company and hence he could not sign the appeal. In support, reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Prime Securities Ltd. reported in 28 DTR 119 (Bom) and Remfry & Sons reported in 276 ITR 1 (Del). The ld. CIT(A), while distinguishing the decisions relied on by the assessee, did not accept the assessee’s explanation. He observed that what the assessee is stating is a matter of ‘convenience’ which can neither supersede nor bypass the requirement of law. Firstly, if this was a bona fide contention, this fact ought to have been mentioned…